If you could make a new thread with this information, please ping me and I will flag it to my entire RKBA list.
Posted on 09/11/2014 11:19:26 AM PDT by Dead Corpse
Gotta love when the BATFE get egg on their face. Freedom marches on!
We can certainly hope so. Here’s a synopsis one of the posters on AFRCOM put together...
Sorry I’ve been out of the loop for about 18 hours.
Update to the OP:
ETA: 9/11/14
The audio of the ATF call on page 18 (thanks Jaqufrost):
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Audio is up. I’m not going to say I handled this phone call the best, but here it is.
http://youtu.be/4s9GKoxnGcM
ETA: 9/12/14
FAQ - - for the tl;dr crowd
(Started by Undefined, edited by Orpheus762x51)
What’s happening?
1. ATF ruled that a trust is not a person as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).
2. Since ATF holds that an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA, the prohibition on the transfer or possession of machineguns as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(1) and 18 U.S. Code § 922(o) cannot apply to unincorporated trusts.
3. Numerous (See Footnote #1) trustees submitted Form 1 applications to build new machine guns.
4. ATF approved the applications and sent out stamps (See Footnote #2).
5. On or around 9/10/14, ATF began calling trustees that received stamps demanding that they be returned, or in the case of eForms, updating their online status from Approved to Disapproved. Those that were called were told they had to return the stamp. (See Footnote #3 for audio of one such call)
6. Attorneys are working on it now...
Footnotes:
1. Current estimates put the number of trusts that applied somewhere in the low hundreds. Unfortunately, there is no 100% accurate count that is publicly available.
2. Some stamps were received as early as the first week of August 2014. Others have not been received yet.
3. Jaqufrost’s call from the ATF:
Does this mean if I have a trust I can get Form 1s approved to build machine guns?
No. BATFE is no longer sending out approvals. Your application will be rejected.
Should I submit a Form 1 through a trust right now?
Yes. As of right now, the ATF is aware of what is going on with these Form 1s. Your submission will likely be rejected, however it would add you to a class of trustees who have standing against the ATF in the event of future legal action. Even though your Form 1 application will likely be denied, it would be helpful to submit a Form 1.
What should I do if I was one of the trustees that submitted a Form 1 and received approval?
Presto97sl summed it up pretty well (see below). I would add that you should contact NoloContendere via IM and at nolocontendere@ar15.com as he is a rally point right now for coordinating and tracking efforts on this issue.
Here is what Nolo wants, in this particular order:
1) if you received an approval and subsequent to that approval manufactured And then had a disapproval.
2) if you received an approval and then were denied.
3) if you filed a form 1 and were denied.
Originally Posted By Presto97sl:
Let me begin with I am an attorney.
Anyone who had one of these approved and then denied needs to do the following
1. Cut off any contact with the ATF directly regarding this issue until you have sought legal counsel.
2. Keep a copy of any information they mail to you, I would photo copy and hang onto everything.
3. Contact an attorney who specializes in this area of law.
4. DO NOT cash the check they are going to send you refunding your paid tax ( you may waive your rights by doing so).
What can the rest of us do to help?
1. Keep the thread bumped.
2. Submit a Form 1 to manufacture a machine gun through a trust.
3. Stand by.
Where can I send donations?
Nowhere, yet! There will be a time and place for that, but no one wants to start collecting money until we know how and where it will be spent. Plaintiffs are discussing options with attorneys right now. Attorneys are working on a plan right now. As soon as funding is needed, it will be requested (after getting Strykers approval). Until then, be patient.
So the OP has an approved Form 1 and a machine gun?
No. Orpheus762x51 started this thread and is keeping Arfcom updated on the situation. Jaqufrost did receive an approval on his Form 1, then the ATF subsequently demanded that it be returned. Undefined, NoloContendere, I_am_Dan, and a few others in this thread are just plain awesome.
How do I Submit a Form 1?
For paper Forms: Complete Guide of how to complete a Form 1
For eForms: Visual guide: How to fill out a Form 1 using EFORMS
ETA: 9/13/14
The die has been cast on Page 36.
Originally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
I’ve been informed that one of my gunsmith’s customers (Mr Ground Zero) received his stamp and converted an AR in early August.
His lawyer has opined that the ATF is VERY CAREFULLY choosing their words as they contact those people that they have issued stamps to. His take is that they are trying to intimidate people into surrendering their stamps and any MGs that have been manufactured since those stamps were received. No words stating that the stamp holders MUST surrender were used in the audio recording posted here, it has merely been implied.
No certified letters have been received by Mr Ground Zero as is required by law when ATF ORDERS an FFL to surrender stamps or firearms. No other such official communications have taken place, either. Simply a phone call, which does not constitute an official communication. It sounds just like the telephone games IRS plays with people trying to entrap them into admitting to tax fraud.
This one individual has already contacted his congressman and is working to provide the information requested by the congressman’s office to verify this complaint, which may be the prelude to congressional action on ATF making a policy change that required congressional action to be legal.
ATF is scurrying around trying to cover this mess up like a cat with diarrhea, and they are not doing a very good job of things as everything they’ve done has uncovered more shit they don’t want exposed.
So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
One of the first machine guns produced in civilian hands in nearly thirty years...
With ATF approval.
Yes. You heard right.
A machine gun.
Manufactured after 1986.
With ATF Form 1 approval.
Is in the WILD!!!
Also, this issue has been making it’s way around the internet in the form of several articles in just a couple days:
The Firearm Blog: ATF Approves Post-86 Machine Gun Form 1
The Firearm Blog: BATFE Phone Call Asking For Return of Approved Trust Form 1
The Truth About Guns: ATF Just Approved the First New Civilian Machine Gun in 28 Years. By Accident.
NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog: ATF Approves some Form 1 to Make Machine Guns by a Gun Trust and then Rescinds the Approval
Prince Law Offices, P. C. : Did ATF Approve Your Making of a New Machinegun and Then Rescind It? Contact Us To Discuss
A lot of that has to do with the availability of them. The Hughes Amendment created a situation where MG’s are not commonly held because of the ban. Get rid of that ban and you’ll see massive numbers of MG’s being owned legally. As it is now, there’s several times the number of contraband MG’s in the US vs. legally owned and registered ones. The Hughes Amendment has created a very interesting situation that will result in the destruction of the NFA before long.
Pretty much EVERY .mil pattern “semi-auto” out there was originally designed as a select-fire weapon.
And they are ubiquitous to put it mildly.
One of the lawyers over on AFRCOM is formally putting together a challenge to this. Not just the attempted revocation of an approved Form 1 stamp, but to 922 in it’s entirety.
Stay tuned.
http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk
Funding site for the guys running the lawsuits is up.
Going after total repeal of 922.
First case filed... A little over $32k raised in the first 21 days.
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/245057730
Ping to post 46...
First case filed.
Would this all only apply to trusts used for manufacturing, or is it all out for everything? Suppressors? SBRs?
Also. Related question:
If I’ve already received my stamp for my suppressor, what would be the opinions of you guys if I went to get a CLEO signature for another suppressor?
If you could make a new thread with this information, please ping me and I will flag it to my entire RKBA list.
Worst case. Post-86 machines guns under NFA trusts are legit.
Best case. NFA is completely struck down. You could buy an M2 as easily as any other firearm.
If that is what is required by current State law where you live...
Still not sure why we need that to buy a muffler for our firearms when most State laws require us to put mufflers on our cars...
Can do once I’m in my office. I’m on an iPad right now and formatting a post from this thing is... Problematic...
Don’t confuse NFA with 922(o). You, or your trust, can per NFA buy anything except post-’86 machine-guns, so long as you register and pay your $200 or $5 tax.
Thing is: for the post-’86 MG ban, there’s this little tidbit in the 922(o) prohibition:
“This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof”.
Well...I’m sure “under authority of” can be construed rather broadly, and that latitude may be exercised by a surprising number of political entities. And...I suspect, given that broad authority by a broad range of applicable agents & agencies, this has been used in a very legal yet eyebrow-raising manner. Would that a state governor would declare, given his authority under this subsection, that “all non-felon state residents in otherwise good standing are hereby granted, in writing on request, authority by this state to receive transfer and subsequently possess post-’86 MGs, as registered in compliance with federal NFA and other applicable laws; this action is provided to restore and fulfill residents’ 2nd Amendment rights.” It’s doable, folks.
Okay. Thanks.
I just hope they don’t come after me for my new Osprey because I went the trust route to get it. I’ve only been able to take it to the range once so far.
From what I understand, this current kurfluffle started because the ATF ruled, according to 922 itself, that “trusts” are not “people”. As such, several form 1’s were approved for manufacturing a post-86 machinegun under the “trust”.
Once the ATF figured out what was going on, they tried to get the approved stamps back. They have no legal means to do that though. Revocation for some other crime is the only stipulated way for them to retrieve an approved stamp.
They then started rejecting form 1’s filed under trusts. For a reason that does not comply with either their earlier findings nor the letter of the law governing trusts. “Just because we say so” seems to be about the size of it.
So, now these lawsuits.
This should not effect the legality of suppressors, SBR’s, or SBS’s at all. Regardless of the outcome.
Sweet. Thank you.
Any time.
Again, this isn’t legal advise. I am not a lawyer. This is just my understanding of how all this crap cludges together. For definative legal advise, comtact a firearms friendly lawyer in your State....
/Disclaimer
No problem.
I honestly can’t see the ATF pulling an Ares Armor (changing the rules in the middle of the game) on suppressors at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.